ProMOS vs. National Health Insurance

ProMOS vs. National Health Insurance:
How the Government Treats Big Business Differently Than Ordinary Citizen
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 18, 2009


Banks have agreed to loan ProMOS Technologies three billion NT. That was a first step in providing relief to the DRAM industry. On the same day, the Department of Health announced its "Health Care Reform Program." It would impose a "National Health Insurance Tax" on over two million people, to compensate for the Bureau of National Health Insurance deficit. These two seemingly unrelated events revealed the vast difference in the government's attitude toward Big Business and the ordinary citizen.

The DRAM industry has suffered hundreds of billions of dollars in losses. For the past few months, everyone including the President, the Premier, and the Minister of Economic Affairs, has promised to rescue the industry, and even promised hundreds of billions in National Development Funds to rebuild the industry. The government's concern for Big Business truly is all-encompassing. By contrast, the government wants to levy a National Health Insurance Tax on ordinary citizens who earn over 180,000 NT by moonlighting. It neither consulted the public before implementing this policy, nor explained its decision. It simply went ahead and did it. It immediately butchered the fatted calf it had selected. The Department of Health even had the chutzpah to refer to their callous move as "Health Care Reform."

Both the DRAM industry and health care involve deficits. But when large private sector businesses lose hundreds of billions, the government immediately offers relief. When the Bureau of National Health Insurance loses 20 billion, the government doesn't consider how to improve the system in order to control costs. Instead, it immediately reaches into the pockets of ordinary citizens to make up the shortfall. It bows and scrapes before Big Business. It looks down its nose at the little guy. Is this how a democratic government is supposed to treat its citizens, according to economic or social class?

Whether the government should ought to relief for ailing industries and whether it is obligated to ensure the solvency of the health care system are different matters. They require different solutions. It is not our intention to conflate the two. What we want to point out is that the government treats Big Business and the little guy very differently. From the perspective of social justice, this is intolerable.

The DRAM industry is important. But many DRAM companies have flatly refused to go along with the Ministry of Economic Affairs industry consolidation plan. The government's intervention has not been welcomed, and has been an exercise in frustration. By contrast, the National Health Insurance was originally supposed to be a health insurance policy. Yet the government has redefined it as social welfare. Everyone receives the same health care. Yet the government has continually raised the rates for users to make up for its own inability to fulfill its committments. Is this reasonable?

Look at some recent examples. Bank deposit interest rates are now close to zero. Yet bank credit card interest rates run as high as 20%. This is sheer exploitation, no different than loan-sharking. Last year, after FSC consultation, most banks grudgingly lowered their rates one or two percentage points. They were clearly going through the motions, and were still exploiting consumers. The banks are arrogant because the government has spoiled them for much too long. When the Special Investigation Unit investigated the Second Financial Reform scandal, it discovered that many banks resorted to bribery. By currying favor with Ah-Bian and Ah-Chen, they hoped to gain an edge over competitors during their acquisition efforts. Unfortunately, prosecutors are frightened of financial consortia. During their interrogations they dared not dig too deep. They merely went through the motions. Do the two examples we have examined, not confirm that the government bows and scrapes before financial consortia, but looks down its nose at ordinary citizens?

Taiwan's DRAM industry, is a monster created by the Chen administration, the product of "Two Trillion, Twin Stars" and anabolic steroids. Too many companies crowd the field, too much capital has been invested, and the technology is too heterogeneous. These companies are saddled with 400 billion in loans. They cannot produce efficiently, are underutilized, and lose money. The government can sink billions into them. They can help them squeak by, for now. But if they do not undergo radical restructuring, they will still be unable to compete with South Korea.

The best thing the government can do is to allow the market to eliminate the unfit. Natural selection will leave the strong standing, allowing them become the backbone of the industry. This way, Taiwan's DRAM industry will not collapse or disappear. It will fortify itself from within. Germany's Qimonda has declared bankruptcy, temporarily reducing pressure on the global DRAM industry. This is a good example of market selection. But if our government intervenes, if officials shoot off their mouths, not only will they provoke market speculation, they will throw a monkeywrench into any restructuring plans the industry already has in the pipeline. ProMOS Technologies has been saved, for the time being. But the entire industry is in a wait-and-see mode. The downside is great. The upside is non-existent.

The National Health Insurance system faces the same problem. If the government is sincere, the least it can do is offer a public accounting of the National Health Insurance system's finances. It should brief the people on where the money went. How much money did the National Health Insurance Bureau save through aggressive cost-cutting measures? What is needed to make up the deficit? If it can persuade the public, everyone is sure to do his best to ensure that the health care system does not fail. National Health Insurance Bureau workers received year-end bonuses equalling four months wages. Yet the Department of Health has, out of the blue, decided to wring "Health Insurance Taxes" from two million citizens. The system was clearly meant to be a form of insurance. Yet the government is redefining it as a form of taxation. How can this be justified?

茂德與健保：政府對企業和對人民的兩種面孔
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.02.18 03:45 am

銀行團同意增貸茂德卅億元，使ＤＲＡＭ產業的紓困案跨出了首步。同一天，衛生署宣布健保改革方案，將對兩百多萬民眾加抽「健保稅」，以彌補健保的虧損。兩件看似不相干的事件放在一起，卻對照出政府決策對待大企業與對待一般民眾態度的偌大反差。

幾個月來，對虧損上千億的ＤＲＡＭ產業，從總統、行政院長到經濟部長，無一不信誓旦旦宣稱「一定會救」，甚至預告將挹注千億國發基金協助業者重建。政府對大企業的眷顧，真是無微不至。相對的，政府要對「外快」年逾十八萬元的民眾加徵健保稅，既不徵詢民意、也不詳述原由，就逕行作成決策，馬上要動手宰割他們選定的肥羊。如此粗暴的行徑，衛生署竟美其名曰「健保改革」。

試想，同樣是虧損，幾家民營大企業的上千億虧損，政府自告奮勇要掏大錢去搶救；反觀國家健保的兩百億虧損，政府不思從制度面去檢討及改善成本控管，卻不由分說要強拔數百萬民眾的鵝毛來填補。對大企業恭、而對小百姓倨，這是民主政府施政的「階級禮儀」嗎？

產業紓困和健保財務是截然不同的事，應有不同的解決方法，我們無意混為一談。這裡要指出的是，政府的施政決策，存在嚴重的「重企業、輕庶民」的差別待遇；就社會正義的角度而言，這是難以忍受的事。

ＤＲＡＭ當然是重要產業，但若干企業根本拒絕經濟部所提的產業整合計畫，政府的介入即顯得極不適當也自討無趣。相形之下，健保原是一項健康保險，卻不斷被政府扭曲成社會福利；人民享受同樣的健康照護，政府卻不斷提高薪資所得者的支付額，以填補自己無力負擔的社會承諾，這又如何稱之為合理？

再看看最近的一些事例。目前國內銀行存款利率已近乎於零，但銀行信用卡循環利率均仍高達百分之廿，盤剝暴利，與地下錢莊無異。年前經過金管會協調，多數銀行僅勉強調降一兩個百分點，分明是虛應故事，對消費者仍高度剝削。銀行態度如此蠻橫，不是政府長期驕寵的結果嗎？相對而言，特偵組偵辦二次金改弊案，發現多家銀行以各種行賄手段討好扁珍，以遂購併銀行或取得其他便利之意圖；但檢方對金控財團似心存顧忌，只不斷在表層的訊問上打轉。兩相對照，豈不再度驗證政府對財團恭、對人民倨的兩種面孔？

台灣的ＤＲＡＭ產業，是扁政府時代吃了「兩兆雙星」的「激素」養出來的怪物，不僅家數過多、投資過大，技術也太蕪雜。如今這些企業背負著四千多億的沉重貸款，卻無法充分發揮生產效益，處於開工不足及虧損的局面。因此，若不進行體系重整，就算政府和銀行砸下千億銀彈，讓每家企業能撐過此時，未來仍不可能有足夠的競爭力與南韓爭勝。

政府最好的作法，原是讓市場進行自然汰劣，讓通過物競天擇的強者留下來成為主力；如此，台灣ＤＲＡＭ產業不會垮掉或消失，卻能錘鍛出更強悍的體質。德國的奇夢達宣告破產，使全球ＤＲＡＭ廠壓力瞬時大減，就是市場「天擇」的佳例。但是，我政府卻處處插手，官員又隨便放話，不僅喚起了股市的投機風潮，也使企業原本進行中的整併計畫變數頻生。如今，暫時保住茂德，但整個產業卻停在「群小逐鹿」的觀望局面，這真正是「短多、長空」。

健保的問題也一樣。政府如果夠用心，至少應將健保財務結構攤開來，告訴人民哪些錢花在哪裡，健保局近幾年又透過績效控管節約了多少經費，如今還有哪些缺口需要填補等等。若能說服民眾，大家都願盡己力來維持健保制度於不墜。問題是，健保局人員年領四月年終獎金，而衛生署竟憑空拿出一紙方案，逮住兩百萬民眾就要強抽「健保稅」。明明是「保險」，政府卻當「稅」來抽，這豈是名正言順？